[Wittrs] Re: On Law Professors and Quantitative Methods
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: LAWCOURT-L@xxxxxxxxxx, wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:02:16 -0800 (PST)
(In reply to Susan Lawrence, who writes, "Exactly what would a Wittgensteinian
analysis of settlement rates; attorneys' fees in class actions; or the effects
of defendants' criminal records on case outcomes look like?")
First, let me concede your point. I never meant to say Wittgensteinian method
could help for these types of issues. The method is only concerned with
dispelling confusions. (One of the ways in which confusions dispel themselves,
by the way, is that they turn purely informational: one merely has to look and
see).
But let me at least comment on what a philosophic-minded person might worry
about with respect to studies you mention. Below are edited passages from a
mail
I just wrote to Frank Cross (privately) concerning the statistical analysis of
football. They apply equally to the statistical analysis of any human activity
(settlement rates, fees, etc).
1. Methods are only helpful for things that humans cannot, themselves, see or
experience. (E.g., what effect drug X has on certain kinds of lipids 24 hours
after intake). The trouble happens when methods become superimposed on things
we
CAN experience (e.g., Who was a greater risk taker -- Bradshaw or Favre?). When
we impose stats upon things we can, in theory, perceive by watching -- we lose
information rather than gain it. The stats mislead. Example: as soon as you
talk
about a "quarterback rating," you mislead someone who neglected to see
Roethlisberger in the AFC championship, and only heard about the low number.
The
person who watched it always has the advantage.
In fact, what social scientists really do is bend their analysis to suit
what they think they are seeing in the first place -- that's how they "check
their work." It only gets released if it can act as a good piece of journalism.
2. Stats work best with two companions: (a) things that are
naturally commensurable (e.g., the economy and dollars); and (b) things
naturally stochastic. Social studies tend to lack these things. You have to
construct what you want to show. Same with applying stats to football
and settlement analysis. This always compromises the picture.
3. Very frequently, the thing social studies want to show is not something that
can easily be scientized. Look at the idea of "inflation" (troubling). Now
compare that to "ideology" (much worse). Now compare it to whether a team has
to
run to win the Super Bowl. Or whether something affects settlement. The
settlement question is no different than the Super Bowl. Same exact thing. Your
answer yesterday is not the same as tomorrow. You can only provide a kind of
journalism on the subject.
You have to ask yourself: what does a regression analysis of settlement rates
tell you compared to what (say) a good NPR or 60 Minutes investigation might
have? Or what 30 years of experience tells you? Or what a collection of people
with major experience might say? What you must understand is that mathematics
can only ever be a kind of sculpture when summoned into the service of social
studies.
The stats are only good if we think the journalism is accurate. If we think the
portrayal fits.
(Also, learning Wittgenstein can help students see this last point)
[P.S. -- Sent to Wittrs]
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
